A sign on the Tittabawassee River, downriver from Dow Chemical Plant, stating to avoid contact with the soil and not eat the fish due to dioxin contamination (Photo by Vincent Duffy)
The federal government and a major
chemical company have reached an
initial agreement about cleaning
up one of the nation’s largest dioxin
pollution sites. But, Shawn Allee reports, the public will
have to wait a bit to examine the
fine print:
Transcript
The federal government and a major
chemical company have reached an
initial agreement about cleaning
up one of the nation’s largest dioxin
pollution sites. But, Shawn Allee reports, the public will
have to wait a bit to examine the
fine print:
Central Michigan has a dubious distinction: The Environmental Protection Agency
claims that a flood plain there has some of the highest dioxin levels ever found in soil.
That dioxin came from a Dow chemical plant decades ago. The EPA and Dow just
concluded negotiations over a clean-up deal.
Wendy Carney is with the EPA’s regional Superfund cleanup office. Carney says the
deal is not done, though.
“This agreement doesn’t actually contain any cleanup options. It also doesn’t
address any cleanup levels for the site. That would be a part of things we would talk
about with the public in a public forum to get their feedback on those issues.”
Carney says the EPA could unveil its agreement with Dow in two weeks.
The EPA suspects dioxins cause cancer and other health problems.
The famous photo of the Cuyahoga River fire that appeared in Time Magazine. The photo is not of the 1969 blaze, but rather of another fire on the river in 1952. (Photo courtesy of NOAA)
Federal and state governments have cut
back on monitoring some big sources of
pollution, and small sources are rarely
monitored. Lester Graham reports it’s a
problem that’s even tougher when state
budgets are cut:
Transcript
Federal and state governments have cut
back on monitoring some big sources of
pollution, and small sources are rarely
monitored. Lester Graham reports it’s a
problem that’s even tougher when state
budgets are cut:
Industry does not pollute like it did in the 1960s or 70s. Today, regulators monitor most of those big factories.
Tom Lyon is the Director of the Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise at the University of Michigan.
“Big smokestack industries we have a fairly good eye on, but there are a lot of areas that we still don’t have a good handle on.”
Like small businesses which collectively can release a lot of toxins, and farms that use pesticides and fertilizers on millions acres.
Jennifer Sass is a Scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council. She says, under the Bush Administration, pollution monitoring of big industry was cut back. Sass says that monitoring needs to be restored and expanded to smaller sources.
“If we quit our monitoring programs, then we don’t really know. It’s a lot like putting our head in the sand.”
But many state agencies say they don’t have the resources to keep track of all those sources of pollution.
Beluga Whales along the Canadian Atlantic coast developed tumors after they came in contact with chemicals from aluminum smelters. (Photo courtesy of NOAA)
A new report in the journal Nature Reviews
Cancer looks at cancer in wildlife. Mark
Brush reports, the disease in animals is
sometimes caused by pollution:
Transcript
A new report in the journal Nature Reviews
Cancer looks at cancer in wildlife. Mark
Brush reports, the disease in animals is
sometimes caused by pollution:
The authors of this paper looked at a lot of research on cancer in wild animals. Some of these studies linked the cancer cases to pollution.
Beluga Whales along the Canadian Atlantic coast developed tumors after they came in contact with chemicals from aluminum smelters. And some fish and clam species have developed cancers after being exposed to pollution.
Denise McAloose is a veterinarian with the Wildlife Conservation Society. She’s the lead author of the paper.
“People should care about cancer in wildlife because, especially in those cancers that are driven by environmental factors, those environmental factors affect not only the animals, but people as well.”
For example, the people who worked in those aluminum smelters also had higher rates of cancer.
She says more research into the link between pollution and cancer in animals needs to be done. Because looking at how the disease affects wildlife might help us treat or prevent cancer in people.
Molly Aubuchon and Stefan Meyer survey their lawn. (Photo by Julie Grant)
There are some dead spots in the yard, but they don't want to use chemicals. (Photo by Julie Grant)
They like to keep the yard natural and free from chemicals. (Photo by Julie Grant)
Many Americans love full, lush
lawns. Fertilizers and herbicides
might help. But there’s concern
about water pollution from lawn
chemicals. Julie Grant reports
that some experts say you can use
them, just don’t over-use them:
Transcript
Many Americans love full, lush
lawns. Fertilizers and herbicides
might help. But there’s concern
about water pollution from lawn
chemicals. Julie Grant reports
that some experts say you can use
them, just don’t over-use them:
Molly Aubuchon and her husband Stefan Meyer aren’t sure
what they’re going to do. Their two little kids are running
around the yard. Stefan wants a lawn of thick, soft grass for
them to play on. But that’s not what he’s got.
Stefan: “As you can see, there’s no grass here.
I don’t know what some of this stuff is. Some kind of moss.
I think even the moss died, so now we have dead moss
that’s like yellow and brown.”
Molly: “It’s not attractive dead.”
Stefan: “No. I just think, when I’m out here cutting my grass,
I’m like, man, if I lived across the street, I’d be like, ‘hey look,
they’re cutting absolutely nothing again. They’re just running
that lawn mower over bare spots.’”
They see their neighbors, with those thick, green lawns,
spreading chemicals a few times a year. Molly and Stefan
don’t want to do that.
Molly: “Well, the fact that I’ve got kids running around here
all day. And the fact that it seeps into the water supply and
the rivers, that’s a concern to me.”
There are lots of people who are concerned about lawn
pollution. Lawns have gotten a bad wrap in some places –
because of the fertilizers and other chemicals people use on
them. In much of Canada, lawn chemicals have actually
been banned.
Lou DiGeranimo is General Manager of Water in Toronto.
He says lawn chemicals were damaging the water quality.
“People were over-fertilizing, they were using commercial
pesticides. That chemical ended up in the rivers and ended
up in the lake. We passed a bylaw that prohibited that.”
But some experts say the chemical bans in Canada are
extreme.
David Gardner is professor of turf grass at the Ohio State
University. He doesn’t think banning lawn chemical will do
anything to improve the environment.
“Based on the work that I have seen, based on the research
that has been conducted, I believe that if there is a unilateral
ban on the use of pesticides it will make absolutely no
impact on our environmental footprint.”
Gardner says compared to
other sources of pollution, like cars and over-use of
chemicals on farms, the impact of lawn care is miniscule.
Still, Gardner says people like Molly and Stefan can keep
nice lawns – without using a lot of chemicals.
He says you’ve got to cut the grass and water regularly.
He also recommends fertilizing lightly in the spring and more
heavily in the fall.
That’s what Gardner does at his house – and he uses only 6
to 8 ounces of herbicide a year.
“Putting it another way, if I were to go to a store and buy one
of those gallon jugs of ready-made herbicide, that would be
enough to last me for about 16 years.”
Gardner says the herbicide will hit its expiration date before
he has a chance to use it all.
But Molly and Stefan just aren’t sold. They don’t want to use
lawn chemicals just to appease the neighbors.
Stefan: “I just want to feel good about the way my yard
looks for my own satisfaction. I would like to cultivate some
grass that looks good, you know, with my hands.”
Besides, Stefan says, they don’t have the worst looking lawn
on the street and they’d just rather not add unnecessary
chemicals into the environment.
Stefan: “We don’t have the worst lawn on the street. Our
street is not that long. It’s only four blocks, five blocks long –
there’s a house down there and their yard looks worse than
ours.”
The Anacostia River in Washington DC is ridden with garbage, and plastic bags make up 20% of the trash tossed in (Photo by Kavitha Cardoza)
For years, the Anacostia River that flows through
Washington DC was widely known as the forgotten
river, lost in the shadow of the better known
Potomac. At one point, some say the trash in the
river was so thick you could walk from one side to
the other without getting wet. Today things are
better. But, most people say not enough has been
done. DC’s city council is considering a five cent
tax on every disposable plastic and paper bag with
most of the money going to cleanup efforts. As Kavitha
Cardoza reports if it passes,
the fee would be the toughest law on plastic and paper
bags in the country:
Transcript
For years, the Anacostia River that flows through
Washington DC was widely known as the forgotten
river, lost in the shadow of the better known
Potomac. At one point, some say the trash in the
river was so thick you could walk from one side to
the other without getting wet. Today things are
better. But, most people say not enough has been
done. DC’s city council is considering a five cent
tax on every disposable plastic and paper bag with
most of the money going to cleanup efforts. As Kavitha
Cardoza reports if it passes,
the fee would be the toughest law on plastic and paper
bags in the country:
Kindergartners from the Evergreen School in Wheaton, Maryland are leaning over a rail and looking at bags, cups, wrappers and other trash floating in the Anacostia River.
They’ve travelled to D.C. to learn more about, as they put it, “what kills fish.”
The five-year-olds are NOT impressed with what they see.
The children roll up their sleeves and start pulling trash from the bank. But, it’s going to take a lot more than their small hands to clean up the mess.
Jim Connerly is with the Anacostia Watershed Society. He says Washington D.C.’s own environmental studies estimate each year 20,000 tons of trash is thrown into the Anacostia.
“It’s like a landfill on a conveyor belt.”
Studies also show plastic bags make up about 20% of the trash in the Anacostia.
When grocery bags are thrown away, many of them are swept up by rain water and carried into storm drains that flow into streams. They end up in the Anacostia.
The bags often ensnare birds and turtles. Fish eat the small torn pieces. That results in toxins making their way into the food chain.
Tommy Wells is the D.C. council member who came up with the idea of charging a nickel for plastic and paper bags.
“By charging a nickel, it really gets more into your head than your pocket. Also, it reminds you maybe I should have bought a reusable bag.”
And part of the money raised will help low-income residents buy reusable bags.
But Laurie Walker hasn’t heard about that proposal. She says, as a senior citizen on a fixed income, those nickels can add up quickly.
“Five cents is a whole lot of money, if I put it in a jar, every month when I get paid. I can buy a chicken, hot dogs, eggs for my grandchildren or for myself. I can buy a whole lot with that.”
The fee would raise nearly 2.5 million dollars a year. Besides the reusable bags, the money will fund educational efforts and return a portion to local businesses as an incentive.
The chemical industry which makes the plastic bags hopes anybody opposed to these kinds of fees or taxes will come out against this proposal. But environmentalists like the idea.
(sound of a beaver)
Back at the Anacostia River system, Jim Connerly says, with a little effort, the Anacostia could be trash-free in just a few years.
“In a perfect world, the water quality would be addressed. The thing that’s encouraging to me is that nature is always trying to seek balance. If we let the river alone, if we stop the input of pollutants, it would clean itself. It’s just that we’re not allowing the river to do that.”
Connerly and many others are hoping the Washington DC bag fee helps make that happen.
The EPA and other agencies want to spend $475 million on the Great Lakes
(Photo by Karen Holland, courtesy of the EPA)
The Environmental Protection
Agency’s budget has a lot of
money for green energy projects,
dealing with climate change and
creating green jobs. But Lester
Graham reports the EPA will also
deal with old fashioned environmental
issues such as pollution:
Transcript
The Environmental Protection
Agency’s budget has a lot of
money for green energy projects,
dealing with climate change and
creating green jobs. But Lester
Graham reports the EPA will also
deal with old fashioned environmental
issues such as pollution:
Cleaning up air and water pollution almost seem passe’ after hearing about all of President Obama’s shiny green plans.
But cleaning up past messes is still a priority.
The EPA’s budget is 10.5 billion dollars. In a release, the agency highlighted a plan for the Great Lakes.
The EPA and other agencies want to spend 475-million dollars to clean up polluted bays, stop raw sewage from spilling into the lakes and deal with other ongoing problems.
Andy Buchsbaum heads up the Great Lakes office for the National Wildlife Federation. He says early signs indicate this item in the President’s budget will stick in Congress.
“They haven’t given final approval, but both the House and the Senate approved budget resolutions that include this 475-million dollars for the Great Lakes.”
And there’s also money to work on the Chesapeake Bay, San Francisco Bay, Puget Sound, and other big bodies of water around the nation.
The American Shad became so rare that hatcheries had to help restore depleted populations (Photo courtesy of the US Fish and Wildlife Service)
A million year old cycle of fish migration almost came to an end in the waters off of the nation’s capital. But a monumental conservation effort has brought them back from the brink. Sabri Ben-Achour explains:
Transcript
A million year old cycle of fish migration almost came to an end in the waters off of the nation’s
capital. But a monumental conservation effort has brought them back from the brink. Sabri Ben-
Achour explains:
I bet you can’t recognize this sound.
It is the sound of a female shad – it’s a type of fish – having its eggs squeezed out into a metal
bowl.
“In the bowl, it looks like applesauce.”
That’s biologist Catherine Lim. We are on a boat in the middle of the Potomac, 20 miles south of
Washington DC, harvesting and fertilizing shad eggs. Lim picks up a male shad and gives it a
squeeze.
“Yeah, he sprayed out there.”
She mixes the brew around and adds water.
“We’ll bag them up and send them to the fish hatchery.”
This is all part of an effort to restore the population of the American Shad. For millions of years,
the large silver-iridescent fish have swum in from the Atlantic and up the rivers of the East Coast
every spring to spawn. They return to the same place where their lives began, guided by a
unique geological odor that seeps from the earth and mountains that feed each river.
Once upon a time – only a century ago – these fish were so numerous they turned the water silver
and made rivers move.
At least that’s what Jim Cummins says, he’s a biologist.
“On the Susquehanna, there were so many of them they created a wave as they came up the
river, a standing wave.”
On the Potomac they fueled entire industries. According to newspaper reports, Washington DC
exported 4 million barrels of salted shad every year in the 1840’s.
“The wagons would come into Georgetown were so heavy that they crammed up the city – I think
it’s the first report of gridlock in Washington.”
The fish fed more than just commerce – they nourish everything from crabs to dolphins. Bald
Eagles actually evolved to time their egg laying early, so their chicks would hatch just as the Shad
and their relatives appeared in the river. And then came overfishing, dams, and pollution.
“In the 1960’s, there were times when the migratory fish came up to spawn in the area and met
that pollution, and hundreds of thousands of them died and made a stinking mess.”
The clean water act was passed in 1972, but by 1980, the fish were almost wiped out. A
moratorium on fishing at the time was too little too late. Water quality gradually improved as
waste water treatment plants were upgraded and aquatic grasses returned. But still, no Shad.
So Cummins began the Shad restoration project.
They had to use several nets – each hundreds of feet long – just to catch one fish. They got help
from fisheries and even elementary schools. Dams were fixed to let fish go around them. The
Shad population exploded.
At a boat house just outside of DC, anglers Steve Bocat and Louis Covax are enjoying success
that up until recently, few alive have seen here.
“It was great we had incredible fishing. I mean, between the two of us, we had, what, 50-60 fish
up to the boat?”
Another sign of success, a pair of Bald Eagles recently returned to the area following the fish –
the first in decades.
Coal ash is sometimes used as an ingredient in concrete blocks (Photo source: Skepticsteve at Wikimedia Commons)
For decades coal burning power plants have dumped coal ash into landfills or ponds next to the plants. Tamara Keith reports environmental groups say that’s more dangerous that previously known:
Transcript
For decades coal burning power plants have dumped coal ash into landfills or ponds next to the plants. Tamara Keith reports environmental groups say that’s more dangerous that previously known:
A new report from the Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice uses data from the US Environmental Protection Agency – including a study that had been kept quiet since 2002.
Among the findings, people who live near coal ash storage ponds that are unlined, and who get their drinking water from a well, have a 1 in 50 chance of getting cancer from arsenic contamination.
Lisa Evans is an attorney with Earthjustice.
“It by far presents the largest risk to human health and the environment and there’s no reason to manage the waste in this way.”
The groups are calling for these storage ponds to be phased out and cleaned up in the next 5 years.
The EPA says new regulations are coming soon.
Power companies are willing to stop using storage ponds – but don’t want the coal ash classified as toxic. That would make disposal more expensive.
There is some confusion about what to do with unused medications (Photo source: Shorelander at Wikimedia Commons)
The drugs we take are showing up in our drinking water, and they’re showing up in fish. The federal government’s now saying that in most cases, you should never flush unused drugs down the drain. There are safer ways to dispose of them. But even if you want to do the right thing, it’s not always easy. Rebecca Williams takes a look at what you should and should not do with your medications:
Transcript
The drugs we take are showing up in our drinking water, and they’re showing up in fish. The federal government’s now saying that in most cases, you should never flush unused drugs down the drain. There are safer ways to dispose of them. But even if you want to do the right thing, it’s not always easy. Rebecca Williams takes a look at what you should and should not do with your medications:
In the U.S., there are about 12,000 brand name and generic drugs on the market. And who knows how many over the counter drugs.
Scientists are finding many of these drugs in our water. Everything from caffeine, to allergy and anti-cancer drugs, to antidepressants.
Now, they’re finding these drugs at very low levels. But they’re pretty much everywhere.
An Associated Press investigation found trace amounts of pharmaceuticals in the drinking water of more than 40 million Americans.
“You know, we don’t think it’s enough to cause public harm but honestly nobody’s sure.”
That’s Sahar Swidan. She’s a pharmacist.
Right now, Swidan’s going through a five foot tall box of prescription drugs that people have brought to her store in Ann Arbor, Michigan. They might be expired, or just not needed anymore.
(sound of pill bottle shaking)
“Asthma medications, growth hormones for patients – so really the gamut could be anything and everything.”
A disposal company picks up the drugs about once a month and incinerates them.
Swidan’s drug take-back program is pretty rare. Many pharmacies are not set up to collect unused drugs.
One reason is, it takes a lot of work. Swidan has to sort through the drugs and make sure there aren’t any controlled substances – things like narcotics. It’s illegal for pharmacies to take these back in most cases.
The Drug Enforcement Agency is talking about revising their disposal rules for controlled substances. But for now you usually have to get rid of them yourself. So, how do you do that?
You can dissolve pills or caplets in water, and mix in kitty litter or coffee grounds. That’s to make the stuff look gross and undesirable. Then dump it all into ziptop bags, wrap it up in duct tape, and throw it away.
But to make things more complicated, there’s still a short list of drugs that you’re supposed to flush down the drain. The Food and Drug Administration says the drugs on this list are too dangerous to toss in the trash.
Connie Jung is with the FDA’s pharmacy affairs department. She says the drug label will tell you if you’re supposed to flush them.
“For the small number of prescription drugs that have flushing recommendations they have these because the drugs are strong narcotic pain relievers or other controlled substances. These drugs can be dangerous to those who aren’t supposed to be taking them, particularly children or pets.”
Jung says the FDA is currently reviewing disposal methods for these kinds of drugs… because flushing them down the toilet is starting to raise some questions.
An even bigger problem is that most of the drug residues getting into our water are coming from drugs we take and excrete.
Bryan Brooks is a researcher at Baylor University. He recently found low levels of seven drugs in fish caught near wastewater treatment plants. He says these sewer plants just can’t filter out drugs.
“These wastewater treatment facilities were largely not designed to treat to really ultra low levels. Compounds like birth control medications can be active at low part per trillion levels.”
Right now Brooks is trying to sort out what effects drugs are having on fish.
Hormones like estrogen appear to be feminizing male fish. Antidepressants might change how fish behave. And no one’s sure how drugs might be affecting our drinking water.
Brooks says one thing that can be done at the treatment plant is adding reverse osmosis filters. But they’re expensive.
Brooks says there’s not much we can do about excreting drugs, but at the very least we shouldn’t be flushing drugs down the drain.
A NOAA scientist surveying an oiled beach to assess the depth of oil
penetration soon after the spill (Photo courtesy of NOAA)
Twenty years ago this week, an oil tanker ran aground on a rocky reef in Alaska’s Prince William Sound. The Exxon Valdez spilled more than 11 million gallons of crude oil. It’s considered to be perhaps the biggest ecological disaster in US history. Ann Dornfeld has this look at how oil spill prevention and preparedness have changed in the two decades since Valdez:
Transcript
Twenty years ago this week, an oil tanker ran aground on a rocky reef in Alaska’s Prince William Sound. The Exxon Valdez spilled more than 11 million gallons of crude oil. It’s considered to be perhaps the biggest ecological disaster in US history. Ann Dornfeld has this look at how oil spill prevention and preparedness have changed in the two decades since Valdez:
The call came in just after midnight.
“Ah, evidently leaking some oil and we’re gonna be here for a while.”
Court records indicate Captain Joseph Hazelwood was likely drunk when the Exxon Valdez ran aground.
There was hardly any clean-up equipment on hand. No plan for action. The location was remote.
Oil polluted a stretch of Alaskan coastline the length of the entire west coast of the U.S. The oil killed fish, sea otters, harbor seals and an estimated quarter of a million birds. Today, there is still oil on some beaches.
Twenty years later, a cargo vessel has just reported a spill of 160
gallons of oil in Washington state’s Commencement Bay. Investigators
have filled the “Spill Situation Room” in the state Department of Ecology.
“Who’s responsible for actually maintaining
the bow thruster, when was the last time they performed maintenance on it?”
“You mean one of the staff on board?”
“Yeah.”
Spill Response Manager David Byers says coastal states learned a lesson from Exxon Valdez, and developed rapid response systems like this.
“We’ve got crews headed up in a helicopter to do on-
water observations, we’ve got response resources on the water headed out to do containment when we find the location of the oil.”
Byers says the state handles dozens of spills this size each year, making it somewhat of a well-oiled machine.
After the Exxon Valdez, the state of Washington put in place some tough prevention standards. But the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the state.
The court ruled the state was making safety demands of oil companies that only the federal government could make.
Mike Cooper is Chairman of the state’s Oil Spills Advisory Council. He says that ruling is one reason why small oil spills are common in Washington’s bays. He says other states have come up against the same restrictions.
“When the Massachusetts legislature passed strict laws,
the United States Coast Guard and the industry did the same thing that they did to the people of Washington state. They sued the people of the state of Massachusetts and said, ‘We’ll decide if industry has to pay.'”
The federal Oil Pollution Act did raise industry’s liability and the amount of federal money available in the event of a spill. It also requires oil tankers and barges in U.S. waters to be double-hulled by 2015. The Exxon Valdez’ single hull was easily gouged open when it ran aground.
Today, most U.S.-flagged tankers and barges are double-hulled. Most foreign tankers aren’t yet.
But there’s no law requiring a second hull on cargo ships. Bruce Wishart is Policy Director for People for Puget Sound. He says it’s cargo vessels that are most likely to spill oil.
“It’s commonly assumed that oil tankers pose the
single greatest threat in terms of an oil spill. There are actually many, many more cargo vessels plying our waters that pose a very significant risk simply because they carry a lot of fuel on board.”
In 2007, the cargo vessel Cosco Busan spilled 53,000 gallons of oil into San Francisco Bay. Thousands of birds died, including endangered species. A fully-loaded cargo ship can contain 40 times more oil than what leaked from the Cosco Busan.
So, while oil tankers have become safer in the two decades since the Exxon Valdez, the nation’s waterways still remain at risk of a major spill.
A sign on the Tittabawassee River, downriver from Dow Chemical Plant, stating to avoid contact with the soil and not eat the fish due to dioxin contamination (Photo by Vincent Duffy)
